Vat on Independent school fees?

Vic said:
The question is why the Faily Telegraph thought it a good idea to publish a sob story about rich people cutting back on holidays - thinking it was true!
Click to expand...
Rage bait. If you read any of the comments on them on social media, it's full of people saying 'boo-hoo.' Which pushes it to more people and gets them more clicks.
 
Has anyone worked out whether the number of frozen pensioners or the number of children denied a private education is higher?

I’m going to suggest the latter, but with neither being a significant change from the previous year.
 
meltonblue said:
It’s not classed as NHS, it’s local authority budget and provision.
Click to expand...

The fundamental issue is that this service is provided by the NHS. Funding source is irrelevant.

The criteria includes;

All school aged children who are residents in the Richmond or Kingston boroughs

So even if we go down the route that funding was a variable in the provision of this service (a different debate and one I’m vehemently opposed to as a principle) then you’re ok with the local authority denying children access to healthcare based on their school?
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
They do. However, the way funding is allocated means this service is obliged to treat children registered with a Richmond GP. Any child, whatever school they’re at, would be eligible if they had a local GP. Assuming there is a privately funded boarding school in their locality, it’s unlikely that many attendees would, in fact, be registered with a local GP.
Also, if you’re paying for your child to go to private school and they have a SEN, they’re going to be getting a far higher level of support and intervention than they’d ever get in that service.
Click to expand...

A couple of points:

The child must live in the area and be registered with GP - so that limits anyone who live elsewhere (who attend state school, private school, are home schooled, etc) getting this service. There is zero need to single out non-state school kids as ineligible.

This has nothing to do with normal in school “support” but rather OT support for activities of daily living. This is surely likely the most complex SEN cases.

So given both the above why is this policy acceptable? Perhaps we are happy the parents can afford private OT provisions and means testing NHS services is acceptable.
 
metalblue said:
The fundamental issue is that this service is provided by the NHS. Funding source is irrelevant.

The criteria includes;

All school aged children who are residents in the Richmond or Kingston boroughs

So even if we go down the route that funding was a variable in the provision of this service (a different debate and one I’m vehemently opposed to as a principle) then you’re ok with the local authority denying children access to healthcare based on their school?
Click to expand...

Unless they change the entire model then yes, it’s for the private school to provide.

Not all LEAs use the NHS, some use private companies to provide their occupational health services, some (albeit not many) have it in house.

Under the current model, what you’re arguing is that private school children should still have access to state school services not NHS services.

In terms of changing the model, I’m not adverse to that. I am adverse to the disingenuous reporting though and people who put their children in private schools who don’t seemingly understand all that that entails, particularly a decade after the event.
 
metalblue said:
A couple of points:

The child must live in the area and be registered with GP - so that limits anyone who live elsewhere (who attend state school, private school, are home schooled, etc) getting this service. There is zero need to single out non-state school kids as ineligible.

This has nothing to do with normal in school “support” but rather OT support for activities of daily living. This is surely likely the most complex SEN cases.

So given both the above why is this policy acceptable? Perhaps we are happy the parents can afford private OT provisions and means testing NHS services is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Honestly, they are not singling out non state schools as ‘ineligible’.
 
metalblue said:
The fundamental issue is that this service is provided by the NHS. Funding source is irrelevant.

The criteria includes;

All school aged children who are residents in the Richmond or Kingston boroughs

So even if we go down the route that funding was a variable in the provision of this service (a different debate and one I’m vehemently opposed to as a principle) then you’re ok with the local authority denying children access to healthcare based on their school?
Click to expand...

I think parents should take personal responsibility for their actions when opting out the State system and utilise their own resources when it comes to their children’s health and education.

They shouldn’t expect the State to step in when it suits them. It is after all a Conservative tenet to resist Government or State intrusion into their lives and I encourage them to hold fast to this belief.

Give me Liberty, or give me Death! Even if it is little Timmy’s.
 
BobKowalski said:
I think parents should take personal responsibility for their actions when opting out the State system and utilise their own resources when it comes to their children’s health and education.

They shouldn’t expect the State to step in when it suits them. It is after all a Conservative tenet to resist Government or State intrusion into their lives and I encourage them to hold fast to this belief.

Give me Liberty, or give me Death! Even if it is little Timmy’s.
Click to expand...

How have the opted out of the state system? Opting out would be to use private education in return for a reduction in the tax the parent pays as they no longer use state education.
 
BobKowalski said:
I think parents should take personal responsibility for their actions when opting out the State system and utilise their own resources when it comes to their children’s health and education.

They shouldn’t expect the State to step in when it suits them. It is after all a Conservative tenet to resist Government or State intrusion into their lives and I encourage them to hold fast to this belief.

Give me Liberty, or give me Death! Even if it is little Timmy’s.
Click to expand...
And what happens when they also opt out of the tax system?

The top 10% pays 60% of all income tax. They probably have more right to use the NHS than anybody else...
 
meltonblue said:
Unless they change the entire model then yes, it’s for the private school to provide.

Not all LEAs use the NHS, some use private companies to provide their occupational health services, some (albeit not many) have it in house.

Under the current model, what you’re arguing is that private school children should still have access to state school services not NHS services.

In terms of changing the model, I’m not adverse to that. I am adverse to the disingenuous reporting though and people who put their children in private schools who don’t seemingly understand all that that entails, particularly a decade after the event.
Click to expand...

The person providing the service is employed by the NHS. The service is carried out on NHS premises in a clinical setting. Unless the school are directly paying for the service as a private patient then this is an NHS, free at point of delivery, service.

I get that it differs trust to trust, some providing no service, and perhaps that speaks to the cluster fuck that is the line between health and social need funding in this country.

In this particularly case treatment is refused if you attend a particular type of school - I’ll never see that as acceptable - but this horse has been flogged to death.
 
inbetween said:
And what happens when they also opt out of the tax system?

The top 10% pays 60% of all income tax. They probably have more right to use the NHS than anybody else...
Click to expand...

Nobody had more right than the next person irrespective of contribution but we have a social contract, those that can do, those that can’t are helped.

As soon as you start making decisions based on where someone goes to school you break the principles of that contract IMHO. Once you break the principles of that contract then folk like Farage with their part insurance health care system idea suddenly becomes acceptable to those who are paying taxes etc and feeling they getting less and less support when THEY need it.

Appreciate that’s a bit of a leap from a private school kid not getting an appointment to Farage becoming PM and introducing a two tiered healthcare system with treatment based on an insurance underwriters perceived “value for money” for NHS service but this country is fractured and stuff like this, fuelled/twisted by the media, does nothing to help the middle; particularly when there is some truth to the story.
 
metalblue said:
The person providing the service is employed by the NHS. The service is carried out on NHS premises in a clinical setting. Unless the school are directly paying for the service as a private patient then this is an NHS, free at point of delivery, service.

I get that it differs trust to trust, some providing no service, and perhaps that speaks to the cluster fuck that is the line between health and social need funding in this country.

In this particularly case treatment is refused if you attend a particular type of school - I’ll never see that as acceptable - but this horse has been flogged to death.
Click to expand...

The schools do directly pay for it, the LEA pays the NHS an hourly rate that differs depending on the trust.

I’m not disagreeing with your position, like I said more the disingenuous reporting.
 
meltonblue said:
The schools do directly pay for it, the LEA pays the NHS an hourly rate that differs depending on the trust.

I’m not disagreeing with your position, like I said more the disingenuous reporting.
Click to expand...

That isn’t clear, especially as referral can come from GP (GP refers to NHS will look and feel like an NHS service). Eligibility should read “you will need to check with your school if they have a funding arrangement in place with us, otherwise we can offer a private consultation”. Or some such waffle, it would have made clear it’s not an NHS service and I wouldn’t have got on my soap box, even if the outcome was the same as it is now!
 
inbetween said:
And what happens when they also opt out of the tax system?

The top 10% pays 60% of all income tax. They probably have more right to use the NHS than anybody else...
Click to expand...

I agree. No child should be denied health care based on social or immigration status. But I do enjoying quoting Conservative mantra when they are on the wrong side of it.
 
metalblue said:
That isn’t clear, especially as referral can come from GP (GP refers to NHS will look and feel like an NHS service). Eligibility should read “you will need to check with your school if they have a funding arrangement in place with us, otherwise we can offer a private consultation”. Or some such waffle, it would have made clear it’s not an NHS service and I wouldn’t have got on my soap box, even if the outcome was the same as it is now!
Click to expand...

Like I said, disingenuous reporting is my bigger issue. That and really the parents/school should have known this.

Reporting on the model as a whole and is it right, I’d be all for. Everything’s done through a disingenuous political guise nowadays though and we don’t end up having the conversations we should be having as a consequence.
 
metalblue said:
They are though. It is written as such in eligibility criteria;

…and attend a state maintained Richmond school

Ergo those attending non-state maintained schools are ineligible.
Click to expand...
Almost EVERY state school pupil will have a local GP and, as NHS funding is allocated on a population basis, will be ‘covered’ for this service.
Boy at the private school, with a GP in Buckinghamshire, Edinburgh, or anywhere other than Richmond, will be covered in that allocation, for local access.
However, as it’s main purpose states:
“Therapy aims to enable children to improve their ability to function within their everyday lives and to access the national curriculum more effectively.” To do this, they say:

“We work on things like developing a child’s play, fine motor, self-care and sensory processing. We assess children at Ham clinic, at school and at nursery, as well as in the home environment.”

With the best will in the world, they won’t be travelling hither and thither to visit homes anywhere in the UK, hence it’s a local service.

In reality, of course, children at Kings School will almost certainly be able to access those services, if appropriate, and if they’re unable to provide similar services ‘in house’, which would surely have been discussed with the parents, prior to their children attending?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top